User talk:Tide rolls/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Edit edit-summaries?

Pretty new here, I just noticed that the vandalism you reverted on Odyssey had an accurate edit summary. Surely the vandal didn’t write it, so I presume you did—how? —Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Check out WP:ES. An edit summary box appears on most edits unless you are creating a section or other reason. You usually just fill in what you are doing so other editors have a clue of what you are inserting. Also TideRolls is using Huggle, a program he is using to revert vandalism which does auto summaries upon reverting. To use it you need rollback rights. Hope this helps. Cheers. Never mind, I saw what you meant, the IP replaced the page with different content, the edit summary writes itself when it happens.--iGeMiNix 01:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I know how to use edit summaries on my own edits, at the time of composition: it was altering the summary of a previous edit that I hadn’t seen before. I’d once looked for such a function, when I wanted to correct an earlier summary of mine … but from the above (struck-out part) I gather that it’s only available to users with rollback rights. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Edit summaries are unalterable. Believe me, I'd like to change a few of mine. They can be deleted but only in special cases spelled out at WP:Revision deletion or by oversighters. We just have to be careful as we edit; not much help but it's all I got :) Tiderolls 09:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Just out of curiosity, under what circumstances, if any aside from the wholesale replacement of a page’s content, are edit summaries automatically generated? I’ve noticed that when Undoing an edit the default summary identifies the diffs & editors concerned, and of course at most other times (at the moment e.g.) the section title appears between slashes and asterisks. Would the vandal’s Editing page have displayed the “self-written” summary in the same way, or is it only inserted if nothing is entered by the user? —Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have seen many instances where a user substantially alters an article's content. The edit summary reads "Replaced content with...." or "Replaced page with....". There may be others outside my experience. Never having blanked a page I cannot say for sure; I would assume the summary would not be added until the "Save page" button is pushed. How would the system know one was blanking, or exstensively altering, an article until the edit was saved? That would be kinda creepy. Regards Tiderolls 07:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tips

The only time that you should block a user is if they vandalize after their final warning. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? I think blocks are to stop disruption. If I think the disruption will not stop, then a block is justified. Tiderolls 23:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's true what you're saying but some users like to block a user after a user vandalizes after their last warning. You are doing the right things on Huggle. Keep up the good work. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it depends on the edits, I frequently report vandalism accounts with only 5 edits that don't have all the warnings and get blocked as it is clear what their intentions are so there is no need to wait till the 4th warning. Blocks should be based also on judgment of the user and his contributions, not just by warnings.--iGeMiNix 23:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you semi-protect my user talk page for 24 hours because of vandalism? Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've smei'd your talk for three days. If you see a return of the vandals, let me know. Tiderolls 00:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I will let you know. See you later. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

		The Userpage Shield
		For reverting vandalism on my user page with jaw-dropping speed, I award you this barnstar. Aaron north (T/C) 02:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Get

Hi, Tide Rolls. I was just making a new article on get.

Oops, almost forgot the tildes.Fwedasd (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What I observed was the blanking of a disambiguation page. Please be more careful. Tiderolls 18:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you have to put tildes on your message?Fwedasd (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You already know the answer. Tiderolls 18:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Um...?

Where? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

....and I considered myself experienced in such matters. Oh, well. Tiderolls 00:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

elections

Hi Tide rolls, you won't remember this because it was swamped by the landslide support at your RfA :)
Strong support - Content contribs and edits in other areas are exceptionally low but this candidate is a dedicated janitor. Random stabs at the user's archives show great attention to civility and explanations for edits, and demonstrate a high degree of comprehension of guidelines. Someone I would turn to without hesitation for advice on editing or suggestions for conflict resolution..--Kudpung (tal
The irony is, I really do need your advice now, and thank you for your neutral comment on User talk :ConcentratedAllPurposeCleanerthis page]] today. I'm not sure if you had already seen talk:Jeremy Karpen, and this which was posted a few minutes ago User talk:Jeremykarpen. As I may be throwing my hat in the ring sometime in the forseeable future, I want to be absolutely sure that I have handled this correctly, firmly, and sufficiently politely, and I would certainly value your straightforward advice and suggestions if I have not. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Kudpung. If I had any concerns regarding your actions in this matter I would've messaged you before I took action. As usual, your actions were proper and, I believe, undertaken in good faith. I will have to trust you on the COI aspect as I did not delve deeply into that part of the thing. That is the reason I did not weigh in on the article talk page or respond to User:ConcentratedAllPurposeCleaner's help request on the article talk page. You may want to seek the input of someone more experienced than me on the COI angle. This page has many watchers, so you may receive feedback here. See ya 'round Tiderolls 03:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks enormously for your reassurance Tide Rolls. I had put a straight COI template warning on Jeremy Karpen's own talk page because he had already been warned for disruptive editing to Wikipedia template code, and editing the BLP that bears his name. I also added a perfectly admissible courtesy note at User talk:ConcentratedAllPurposeCleaner, keeping him informed. They are both not yet fully familiar with our many - and sometimes confusing - policies, but I expect they are SPAs and that the issue will blow over soon. Thanks again for your help.--Kudpung (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. New users are easily upset when faced with policies and guidelines that seem overly complicated and designed to purposely obsfucate. In fact, I can empathize with their perception. It takes some effort for folks that are inexperienced to maintain their perspective and resist feeling that they are being singled out. When dealing with those that are new I try to communicate that any particular situation does not revolve around them, but that the accuracy and stability of the encyclopedia is paramount. As long as you can keep a new user communicating, I believe common ground can be reached. Anyway, I have watchlisted their talk page and will assist if my pitiful abilities are required. Regards Tiderolls 14:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Here

For finding a way to beat many people to vandalism including myself on Huggle, here's some stuff:

Wayne Olajuwon has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Wayne Olajuwon has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Wayne, I've been a bit busy. Thanks for the sugar-laden treats. Tiderolls 03:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, Tide rolls! WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

AN/I block review closed

The IP's block is up now. So I closed the thread as "good block". If feel there is more to be said please feel free to reopen the discussion. Inka888^ContribsTalk 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries here. I appreciate you coming to the discussion and offering an opinion. That you supported my action is also appreciated, of course. See ya 'round Tiderolls 02:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Right on

Good call. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It may look good, but I'm a bit confused. I've done a bit of follow-up and hope that I haven't done a boo-boo. We'll see. Roll Tide Tiderolls 04:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was watching after their 'grammar fixes.' Look at their latest edits--you were right. Don't doubt yourself too much, Tide, or we ain't ever going to get to Rock Ridge. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Tiderolls 05:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Cat Stevens

Hi Tide - the edit on Cat Stevens that you reinstated, adding the section of the immigration law that IP 216.81.81.81 (a domain [1] attached to the Department of Homeland Security, by the way) says is the section under which Stevens was denied entry to the US back in 2004, is clearly OR/synth - the source articles do not say that this was the section under which they were operating, and it is classic OR/synth for the editor to be making a connection that the source did not. I've been trying to explain this on Talk with no success - I feel strongly that this shouldn't be there because, for example, the IP points to a USCIS website where the law is posted, but there is no indication there of, say, when that section was made law, so how would we know that this section number is the one they were enforcing? Only if there was a source that said that this section of immigration law is what was being invoked. We just can't assume it. Even if it is true. That is policy. Am I missing something here? Would appreciate your input. Thanks Tvoz/talk 07:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Tvoz. I undid my revert because I had misinterpreted what my Huggle screen was displaying. I did not, at the time, have an opinion on the IPs content. I simply knew my revert was in error. I would be glad to check into the details, but it is late here. Could I check tomorrow and offer an opinion? Tiderolls 07:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course! I'm off to bed too! Tvoz/talk 07:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

After reading the talk page discussions I see your point regarding a direct source. The section recounting Cat Stevens' entry denial is well sourced and I think if the exact statute were notable it would be available from one of these sources. I will watchlist the article and attempt to bring any editors that think the addition is notable to the discussion page. If a consensus can be reached we can then reference that when confronting future attempts. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. See ya 'round Tiderolls 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - likely this will die down as it's just one guy out there with a bug about it. Appreciate your keeping an eye out. Nice to meet you, by the way! Tvoz/talk 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

However, he made the same edit again today - I just reverted it and put a warning on another IP page, but I think it may need some intervention at a higher level than what I can do with warnings. Maybe semi protection would help here? Thanks Tvoz/talk 04:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not vandalism. It's not disruptive until consensus is defined and I shouldn't act administratively as I've commented as an editor. I would suggest leaving a comment on the article talk page and letting the IP know there's a discussion ongoing. Perhaps we can get them talking. You are certainly free to ask at WP:RFPP, but I don't think you'll get much traction there. Tiderolls 10:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's true - I'm not calling it vandalism. But it is at best tendentious, and it is clearly ignoring the input of two experienced editors (you and me) who are trying to explain Wikipedia policy on this. In addition to the Talk page and edit summary explanations asking for Talk discussion, I've placed warnings on both of his IP pages, with extended explanation for why it's against policy - he acknowledges talk page comments by responding but goes ahead and ignores it. I guess we;ll see if the warnings have any impact - if not, surely there's some administrative action that could be taken, but I do understand that it would be best to be presented to uninvolved admins for action. Tvoz/talk 17:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I just wanted to know if it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.123.57 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Now you know. Tiderolls 00:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Tress MacNeille

• I’m sorry to brother you, but you did an edit on the Tress MacNeille page back on August 31, 2010. I thought I should let you or someone know that page is getting some resent vandalism (different IP address) [2][3] and it seems to be on making up her middle name. Going all the way back too when you reverted a vandalism on the page, it’s been Kay, Lee, Ann, and now back Ryan and I’ve yet to see a source to prove it. I mean there Edit is marked as Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism.TheHeronGuard (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No bother at all. I've left a message on the anon's talk page asking that sources be provided that support edits to biographies of living persons. If they continue, or if any other editors continue to add unsourced content, I will respond as needed. I would caution you, though, not to edit war (see WP:3RR) over the inclusion of the middle name. The users may be wrong, but that doesn't necessarily indicate bad-faith editing. I wouldn't want you to get caught up in a misunderstanding when you're trying to do the right thing. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. See ya'round Tiderolls 23:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting my user page! Antique Rose — Drop me a line 01:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Block

Can you block User talk:96.236.39.22 because it's a logged out bot? WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked by another admin. Tiderolls 00:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted you to block him but he got blocked before you can. Do you like my new signature? WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly is eye-catching... Tiderolls 00:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It is. My user talk page is starting to get vandalized again but not as much as before. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop

Why do you keep reverting edits I made on an artical I put up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysonclinkscal (talk • contribs) 01:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Keep" reverting? I reverted one edit...that blanked content without explanation. Perhaps you could employ edit summaries in future to help us understand what you are doing. And sign your posts with four tildes (~)...that would also help. Just so you're informed, anyone can edit an article "you put up". Tiderolls 01:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) One your your edits were also reverted on this talk page and you were warned for vandalism because of that edit. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So I just put four waves after every post I make?

(talk page stalker) Only on talk pages (such as this) do you sign with 4 tildes (~~~~) — Gfoley4 Wanna chat? 04:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But, do not put your signature in an article, or on somebody's user page, only put your signature on a talk page. WAYNEOLAJUWON 15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

How do I remove some of these bands in my artical without vandalizing it? Jaysonclinkscal (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)By putting an edit summary. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me how I'm kinda new to this. Jaysonclinkscal (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Help:Edit summary. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

???

Why did you just write me a message about how to address someone here?? What do you speak for the user...are you like one of them parrots that speak for mutes?? I will be careful in the future and try not to talk like that, but i dont like when people delete something i put when they themselve cant even write to me to tell me my information is false!! MajorHawke (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You didn't send him a message earlier and this was unnecessary. Stay cool and no personal attacks. If people don't give you messages, you won't learn anything on Wikipedia. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why you delete my article?

What i am adding is not true?

Blacks win the lowest % of medals at Olympics , less than Asians , blacks underachieve in 95% of sports, so why you can't accept the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.138.183.195 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you read the message I left on your page then you would understand. If you have sources (WP:Reliable sources) you can raise the issue on the article talk page. To present the content without sources is to present it as your opinion. That is not how content is added on Wikipedia. If you have more questions, let me know. Regards Tiderolls 02:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok [redacted]

I will bring so many facts from soccer , hockey , MMA , Olympic boxing and Estern Europeans dominating boxing from the day the communism collapsed , swimming , gymnastics , triathlon , 95% of sports that we whites dominate that will force you to delete this piece of shit of racism you posted!

I will also bring reliable sources and world records from shot put , hammer , pole vault , cycling , swimming , you name it, trust me , you messed with a nut case here , i will embarrass you and your black superiority theory ;)

I think you misinterpreted my response above as a challenge. It was meant as instruction to help you edit here. In addition to the link in the post above, I suggest that you read WP:No original research and WP:NOTFORUM. I regret that you received another warning for your post but that is the risk you run when you employ personal attacks (more reading:WP:No personal attacks). Regards Tiderolls 02:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick Rizzuto

I see you reverted the removal of the tag "living person" made by an IP. Please note that Nick Rizzuto is not a living person anymore. You might have been misled by your removal of the addition of copyrighted material before, which was not "dubious" as you described, but rather a copyvio.

Thanks. - CETTALK 02:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tide rolls made a little mistake, and everybody makes mistakes. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I thought I'd let him know so he does not continue to revert similar additions on this page in the future. Better tell him than not, otherwise he would've not known about his mistake. I was not making accusations. - CETTALK 02:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Little, big...whatever...I effed up. I've apologized to the user and struck my message on their talk. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, C-E-T. See ya 'round Tiderolls 02:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page, I appreciate it! --TwistOfCain ^(talk) 21:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pleasee remove "the septina florimonte effect from google search

Please remove the septina florimonte effect from google search. I am being targeted. Google states you have to remove all the links to wiki. Please delete all articles in wiki about septina florimonte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Septina florimonte (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki please remove "the septina florimonte effect" from all search engines via wiki .This article was not meant to be published on google for all the world to see.It was posted in error.Please remove all visibility from google search.Septina florimonte (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding repeated messages to this user's talk page. The article has been deleted from Wikipedia. However, Google keeps information in caches, so it may take time for the result to not appear on Google's search results. There is absolutely nothing that we can do--it's an artifact of the way Google searches for and store's information. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

how long does google crawlers take to remove the article"the septina florimonte effect Septina florimonte (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Can they delete article urgently..I am scared..Article was posted in error 01:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You weren't scared when you removed the speedy delete tags on multiple occasions. Why would you be scared now? Thanks for your input, Qwyrxian. Tiderolls 01:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

how long does it take google crawler to remove article"the septina florimonte effect"Septina florimonte (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This article the septina florimonte effect was osted for all the world to see in error.Please can you remove all links on wiki so septina florimonte can not be traced and send a request to google to remove from web crawlerSeptina florimonte (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop posting the same request on my user talk. If you have concerns regarding Google's operations, direct your attention to Google. Thank you Tiderolls 02:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)